Letter to the Editor Two cases of Degos disease with different prognosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ENWEndNote BIBJabRef, Mendeley RISPapers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero AMA Li Z, Jin P, Wang B, Feng S. Letter to the EditorTwo cases of Degos disease with different prognosis. Advances in Dermatology and Allergology/Postępy Dermatologii i Alergologii. 2014;31(6):425-427. doi:10.5114/pdia.2014.44020. APA Li, Z., Jin, P., Wang, B., & Feng, S. (2014). Letter to the EditorTwo cases of Degos disease with different prognosis. Advances in Dermatology and Allergology/Postępy Dermatologii i Alergologii, 31(6), 425-427. https://doi.org/10.5114/pdia.2014.44020 Chicago Li, Zhiliang, Peiying Jin, Baoxi Wang, and Suying Feng. 2014. "Letter to the EditorTwo cases of Degos disease with different prognosis". Advances in Dermatology and Allergology/Postępy Dermatologii i Alergologii 31 (6): 425-427. doi:10.5114/pdia.2014.44020. Harvard Li, Z., Jin, P., Wang, B., and Feng, S. (2014). Letter to the EditorTwo cases of Degos disease with different prognosis. Advances in Dermatology and Allergology/Postępy Dermatologii i Alergologii, 31(6), pp.425-427. https://doi.org/10.5114/pdia.2014.44020 MLA Li, Zhiliang et al. "Letter to the EditorTwo cases of Degos disease with different prognosis." Advances in Dermatology and Allergology/Postępy Dermatologii i Alergologii, vol. 31, no. 6, 2014, pp. 425-427. doi:10.5114/pdia.2014.44020. Vancouver Li Z, Jin P, Wang B, Feng S. Letter to the EditorTwo cases of Degos disease with different prognosis. Advances in Dermatology and Allergology/Postępy Dermatologii i Alergologii. 2014;31(6):425-427. doi:10.5114/pdia.2014.44020.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".